New categories for the Bible Versions Debate

[rlvaughn]

Awhile back, I posted in the Other Christian Denominations forum about denominations other than Baptist who held some form of “King James Only” view. Logos1560 objected to some of the groups truly being “King James Only.” I did not agree with him in relation to the purpose of the thread and what I explained in the opening post – which was following the BB and James White categorizations. Nevertheless, I did and do agree with him that there are problems with those categorizations that should be addressed. I even suggested that it would be good for folks with different views on the Bible version issue to work together and come up with something better than what has been foisted upon us. I am finally getting around to a follow up.

To me something better would be clear (with names that would be more precise to the views), consistent (adhering to similar principles regardless of which view is described), complete (encompassing a variety of views rather than just relationship to the King James translation), and equitable (not designed to favor one view or another). Expressly, then, such re-categorization should be for education and illumination, rather than polemic purposes.

My design here is not to once again debate the versions, as we will continue to find or make plenty of time for that otherwise. Rather, it is to consider what information needs to be prioritized in order to properly understand different approaches and beliefs about Bible versions. I look forward to your irenic and intelligent input of ideas that might be informative. Here are some ideas I came up with. I do not claim these are exhaustive, or that my own biases do not affect how I express these things.

To me it seems that the primary considerations underlying a system of categorization should be, or include, first:

• views concerning the first writing
• views concerning copies of the first writing
• views concerning translations of the writings

Looking at views concerning the first writing, there are at least:

• the first writings are inspired and inerrant
• the first writings are inspired, but not inerrant
• the first writings are neither inspired nor inerrant

Looking at views concerning copies of the first writings, there are at least:

• we cannot know what is the original
• all copies of the originals contain scribal errors
• we can reconstruct and know substantially what is the original from collating and comparing existing manuscripts
• there are or can be copies that faithfully represent the word of God in the first writings

Looking at views concerning translations of the copies of the writings, there are at least:

• all translations reproduce scribal errors and introduce translation errors
• all translations may reproduce some scribal errors and introduce translation errors, but can be considered substantially the word of God as originally written
• there are or can be translations that faithfully represent the word of God as originally written

In addition to this (and probably several things I have forgotten or never thought of to begin with), another consideration is the difference between the approaches of preference and dogmatism (as “I prefer this” vs “this is right”).

This all presupposes that anyone actually wants to understand the various views about Bible versions. I look forward to your thoughts. Thanks.

 

[Van]

SNIP Van's comments in RED
To me it seems that the primary considerations underlying a system of categorization should be, or include, first:

• views concerning the first writing
• views concerning copies of the first writing
• views concerning translations of the writings

Looking at views concerning the first writing, there are at least:

• the first writings are inspired and inerrant [dogmatic statements concern missing documents should be discarded]
  
• the first writings are inspired, but not inerrant [ditto]
  
• the first writings are neither inspired nor inerrant [ditto]

Looking at views concerning copies of the first writings, there are at least:

• we cannot know what is the original [we cannot know all that might be in the original]
  
• all copies of the originals contain scribal errors [delete the "all"]
  
• we can reconstruct and know substantially what is the original from collating and comparing existing manuscripts [true]
  
• there are or can be copies that faithfully represent the word of God in the first writings [delete "in first writings" and change faithfully to reliably]

Looking at views concerning translations of the copies of the writings, there are at least:

• all translations reproduce scribal errors and introduce translation errors [delete all]
  
• all translations may reproduce some scribal errors and introduce translation errors, but can be considered substantially the word of God as originally written [delete "as originally written"]
  
• there are or can be translations that faithfully represent the word of God as originally written [change faithfully to reliably]

In addition to this (and probably several things I have forgotten or never thought of to begin with), another consideration is the difference between the approaches of preference and dogmatism (as “I prefer this” vs “this is right”). [prefer versus onlyism]

This all presupposes that anyone actually wants to understand the various views about Bible versions. I look forward to your thoughts. Thanks

 

[rlvaughn]

Looking at views concerning the first writing, there are at least:

• the first writings are inspired and inerrant [dogmatic statements concern missing documents should be discarded]
  
• the first writings are inspired, but not inerrant [ditto]
  
• the first writings are neither inspired nor inerrant [ditto]

Thanks for your interesting contributions. Could you clarify or explain the meaning on the first one -- "dogmatic statements concern missing documents should be discarded"?

 

[Van]

Thanks for your interesting contributions. Could you clarify or explain the meaning on the first one -- "dogmatic statements concern missing documents should be discarded"?

Since we do not have the original autographs, to assert things not confirmed in the version we have put together is conjecture.

It is like saying, since God is inerrant, his inspired word is inerrant. We know the inspired word's message is inerrant, but without the originals to say no spelling errors or grammar errors, such assertions are conjecture.

We should present what we believe as something we know based on evidence, in my opinion. But I am a conservative.

 

[rlvaughn]

Thanks for the explanation of what you meant.

One purpose of categorization is not to acknowledge that what people assert is true (e.g. whether or not scriptures are inerrant), but to acknowledge that is in fact what they assert.

 

[Ziggy]

Another issue is the matter of differing meanings or interpretations available for the same Greek word or phrase and how those may be rendered in varying ways within a translation.

 

[Yeshua1]

Awhile back, I posted in the Other Christian Denominations forum about denominations other than Baptist who held some form of “King James Only” view. Logos1560 objected to some of the groups truly being “King James Only.” I did not agree with him in relation to the purpose of the thread and what I explained in the opening post – which was following the BB and James White categorizations. Nevertheless, I did and do agree with him that there are problems with those categorizations that should be addressed. I even suggested that it would be good for folks with different views on the Bible version issue to work together and come up with something better than what has been foisted upon us. I am finally getting around to a follow up.

To me something better would be clear (with names that would be more precise to the views), consistent (adhering to similar principles regardless of which view is described), complete (encompassing a variety of views rather than just relationship to the King James translation), and equitable (not designed to favor one view or another). Expressly, then, such re-categorization should be for education and illumination, rather than polemic purposes.

My design here is not to once again debate the versions, as we will continue to find or make plenty of time for that otherwise. Rather, it is to consider what information needs to be prioritized in order to properly understand different approaches and beliefs about Bible versions. I look forward to your irenic and intelligent input of ideas that might be informative. Here are some ideas I came up with. I do not claim these are exhaustive, or that my own biases do not affect how I express these things.

To me it seems that the primary considerations underlying a system of categorization should be, or include, first:

• views concerning the first writing
• views concerning copies of the first writing
• views concerning translations of the writings

Looking at views concerning the first writing, there are at least:

• the first writings are inspired and inerrant
• the first writings are inspired, but not inerrant
• the first writings are neither inspired nor inerrant

Looking at views concerning copies of the first writings, there are at least:

• we cannot know what is the original
• all copies of the originals contain scribal errors
• we can reconstruct and know substantially what is the original from collating and comparing existing manuscripts
• there are or can be copies that faithfully represent the word of God in the first writings

Looking at views concerning translations of the copies of the writings, there are at least:

• all translations reproduce scribal errors and introduce translation errors
• all translations may reproduce some scribal errors and introduce translation errors, but can be considered substantially the word of God as originally written
• there are or can be translations that faithfully represent the word of God as originally written

In addition to this (and probably several things I have forgotten or never thought of to begin with), another consideration is the difference between the approaches of preference and dogmatism (as “I prefer this” vs “this is right”).

This all presupposes that anyone actually wants to understand the various views about Bible versions. I look forward to your thoughts. Thanks.

Is there such a doctrine as "derived inspiration" concerning translations?

 

[Van]

Thanks for the explanation of what you meant.

One purpose of categorization is not to acknowledge that what people assert is true (e.g. whether or not scriptures are inerrant), but to acknowledge that is in fact what they assert.

Is is one thing to believe the word of God is inerrant, and to claim they know it is inerrant. Inferences not supported by logical necessity are conjectural.

 

[Van]

Another issue is the matter of differing meanings or interpretations available for the same Greek word or phrase and how those may be rendered in varying ways within a translation.

Here you use a "key word - available" which could refer to anything imaginable for a liberal translator bent on manipulating the text to support a presupposed doctrine, or simply choosing a word meaning from the historical pallet of the probable writer.

 

[rlvaughn]

Is there such a doctrine as "derived inspiration" concerning translations?

I think that term is sometimes applied to both copies and translations, which I think intends to suggest that those are not directly inspired, but get their inspiration, accuracy, or authority from the original. In other words, as far as they accurately represent the original.

 

[rlvaughn]

Another issue is the matter of differing meanings or interpretations available for the same Greek word or phrase and how those may be rendered in varying ways within a translation.

Would you go a little further into how you see this affecting our putting Bible views into different categories? Thanks.

 

[Yeshua1]

I think that term is sometimes applied to both copies and translations, which I think intends to suggest that those are not directly inspired, but get their inspiration, accuracy, or authority from the original. In other words, as far as they accurately represent the original.

I think that many confuse and equate preservation as being inspiration!

 

[rlvaughn]

...another consideration is the difference between the approaches of preference and dogmatism (as “I prefer this” vs “this is right”)...

Thinking out loud some more about this, perhaps these approaches may fall into something like "Exclusive," "Semi-Exclusive," and "Open." Exclusive would limit itself to one designated view, dismissing the claims of other views. Holding the King James translation as the only valid English translation, or the Textus Receptus as the proper Greek text would be examples of this. Semi-Exclusive would make some exclusive claims, limiting itself within a similar range while allowing for some diversity. Using only a Majority Text or only a Critical Text would exhibit this, or holding that a translation must be formal equivalence makes some degree of exclusive claim without narrowing the field to only one possible view. Open would be remove most barriers, allowing for the correctness of other views -- such as saying it does not matter which Bible translation one uses -- use whatever your prefer. Among Bible believers there probably would not be a truly "no-holds barred" open position, but nevertheless many exhibits a spirit of openness not found in exclusive or semi-exclusive views. One holding an open view might have his or her own preferences, while not condemning the preferences of others.

An example of how an Open View might approach various factors

• the first writings are inspired and inerrant – Exclusive
• we cannot know what is the original – Open
• copies of the originals contain scribal errors, so they are not exact replicas of the originals – Open
• all translations reproduce scribal errors and introduce translation errors; any translational preference may be chosen (and changed) by the reader – Open

An example of how a Semi-Exclusive View might approach various factors

• the first writings are inspired and inerrant – Exclusive
• we cannot know but can substantially reproduce the originals through collation and comparison – Open
• copies of the originals contain scribal errors, but oldest is best; a Critical Text is the best reconstruction of those manuscripts – Semi-Exclusive
• there are translations that well represent the word of God; a formal equivalence translation such as the NASB should be used – Semi-Exclusive

 

[Ziggy]

Would you go a little further into how you see this affecting our putting Bible views into different categories? Thanks.

I think the 1 Cor 7:1ff passage would be a prime example of varying interpretations and varying meanings of individual Greek words, no?

 

[Van]

1 Corinthians 7:1
Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.

Here the best method to translate perceived idioms is in view. I think translators should provide the literal sense in the main text and footnote the possible idiomatic meaning, i.e. "mistreat a women."

 

[Ziggy]

Here you use a "key word - available" which could refer.....

Lest this become a matter of semantics, replace "available" with simply "in existence", for such indeed is the case.

No need to elaborate further, just examine the commentaries on 1 Cor 7ff, whether conservative or liberal.

 

[Van]

Lest this become a matter of semantics, replace "available" with simply "in existence", for such indeed is the case.

No need to elaborate further, just examine the commentaries on 1 Cor 7ff, whether conservative or liberal.

I thought I addressed that in post 15?

 

[rlvaughn]

Though not mentioned on here, others have found the “thinking out loud” thoughts I expressed in Post # 13 confusing. Briefly (below), this may help (or not). Most lists that we work from focus on discussing King James Version views, and commits a category error when lumping the person who likes the King James best and the person who thinks it is new revelation in the same category. My hope is to figure out categories that promote better understanding of points of view.

How to better distinguish Bible version views might be arrived at by asking a series of questions that attempt to understand how each view approaches the Bible. These three below would be the main questions. (An answer, however, may require further investigation with other questions.)

1. What do you believe about the Bible in its original or first writing?
2. What do you believe about the copies of the original writing?
3. What do you believe about the translations of the copies of the original writing?

Then the taxonomist (the one creating the categories) appraises the answers and decides where they fit on the spectrum. Here are the two examples above in Post # 13 revised in a way that might be clearer or easier to understand.

An example of how an Open View might reflect various factors related to the Bible:
Question: What do you believe about the Bible in its original or first writing? Answer: The Bible is inerrant and inspired. Taxonomist: This answer is an exclusive view (i.e., that the first writings are inspired and inerrant is limited to a dogmatic view that is not open to negotiation).
Q: What do you believe about the copies of the original writing? A: We cannot know for sure what the original is, or that we have the first writing in an accurate or complete form. Also, the copies that we have contain scribal errors. T: This answer is not dogmatic or exclusive, but open to varying possibilities (i.e., even though they believe the originals are inspired and inerrant, they cannot be sure that they have been passed down to us).
Q: What do you believe about the translations of the copies of the original writing? A: All translations reproduce scribal errors and introduce other errors made by the translators. Therefore, Bible readers may choose any translation or translations that he or she prefers. T: This answer is not dogmatic or exclusive, but open to varying possibilities (i.e., the view will not prescribe one translation over another).

Considering the answers to the above questions, this Bible view belongs on the open end of the spectrum. It starts with an exclusive view, but moves to openness with the copies and translations. We might call it an “Open Text View” since its lowest common “open” denominator is at the textual level.

An example of how a Semi-Exclusive View might reflect various factors related to the Bible:
Question: What do you believe about the Bible in its original or first writing? Answer: The Bible is inerrant and inspired. Taxonomist: This answer is an exclusive view (i.e., that the first writings are inspired and inerrant is limited to a dogmatic or exclusive view that is not open to negotiation).
Q: What do you believe about the copies of the original writing? A: We do not have but can substantially reproduce the originals through collating and comparing manuscripts. Also, the copies that we have contain scribal errors, but the oldest copies are best. T: This answer is somewhat exclusive, but leaves open varying possibilities (i.e., even though they believe the originals are inspired and inerrant, they cannot be sure that they have been passed down to us complete or intact).
Q: What do you believe about the translations of the copies of the original writing? A: Translations can substantially reproduce the original word of God; a formal equivalence translation made from a critical text (such as the NASB) should be used. T: This answer is somewhat exclusive. It is open to some varying possibilities, but those variations may only come from within a limited range of possibilities (i.e., the view will prescribe some translations and reject others).

Considering the answers to the above questions, this Bible view belongs toward the exclusive end of the spectrum. It starts with an exclusive view, but accepts some variation in the copies and translations. We might call it a “Semi-Exclusive Translation View” since it retains some exclusionary features regarding translations.

So with those two and making up some others, here is a quickly made Excel chart that might give a visual of what I hope to accomplish. Do not take the chart below as some sort of finished product. It is only an idea of what might be done (and obviously would be added to).

 

[RipponRedeaux]

a liberal translator bent on manipulating the text to support a presupposed doctrine

 

[RipponRedeaux]

1 Corinthians 7:1
Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman.

Are you sure that 'man' is the correct word? Aren't you of the opinion that the correct word should be 'person' Van?
After all, if you think that the word 'person' should be in 1 Cor. 11:3, why not here in 1 Cor. 7:1? Or are you enjoying double-talk?